Two Guys Talking: Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe and Cooperstown

Our two curmudgeons weigh in on the decision to allowing Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson to be considered for the Hall of Fame

A.J. Carter: So now that Rob Manfred has passed off judgement of Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson to a higher court, the question here on earth remains whether Manfred’s decision will automatically result in the two being enshrined in Cooperstown. And I have to admit, if you asked me that question, say, 10 or 20 years ago, I would probably have given you a firm “no” as my answer. But I’ve mellowed in my old age, and I’m starting to think that they should be allowed in – with a large asterisk, as you will. I’ll explain, but first I’d like to know what you think, John.

John Coppinger: So if the question is “will this automatically result in their enshrinement”, my answer is no. Both players still need 12 of 16 votes from the Golden Era Committee to get in, and that’s far from automatic. There’s still a character clause that the voters will take into consideration, and especially in Rose’s case, that becomes an issue because of his sexual misconduct allegations. So I think it’s far from automatic in either case. But for Rose specifically, I’m the reverse of you. I once felt that he would have been a member already if he had just been contrite about the gambling, and not finally admitted it to sell a book. That closed the book on him in my view, and since then, I’ve been a firm no for Rose. 

A.J. Carter: That’s a good lead-in to my asterisk, and it gets to the question of what we believe the Hall of Fame should represent. I think it should represent, fairly, accurately and with no apology, the history of baseball, warts and all. Let’s face it, for much of its first 75 years of existence, baseball was a renegade sport populated by players of suspicious moral character, and beyond that, racists (some of whom are in the Hall of Fame), alcoholics, dopers and, yes, gamblers. The Hall of Fame needs to be much more nuanced and sophisticated than the line of pap fed to us when we were kids. I see nothing wrong with allowing people into the Hall of Fame based on accomplishments – and nobody can quarrel with the fact that Rose’s on-field accomplishments are Hall of Fame worthy – as long as their “enshrinement” presents a complete picture. Note that Rose gambled when he knew he shouldn’t, that he cheated on his taxes, and that all in all, was not a very good human being. Place it out there for all to see,

John Coppinger: That would be a compromise, for sure. But then let’s not call it the Hall of Fame anymore. Let’s just call it the Baseball Museum and forget about making it an “honor.” But as of now, It’s a privilege to be in the Hall of Fame. And yes, I understand that there are already all sorts of miscreants that were enshrined in the early days, probably before anyone had any idea of what kind of people they were. We have a better understanding now. We have that clear picture of Rose, and it’s not good. 

There’s one rule that’s posted on the walls of clubhouses all throughout the majors. “NO BETTING ON BASEBALL.” Rose not only broke that, he did so unapologetically while thumbing his nose at Major League Baseball, sometimes going out of his way to do so. He stomped on the integrity of the game. And to put him in now would send the absolute wrong message on top of a lot of wrong messages that we already get.

A.J. Carter: I disagree. And to expand on one of your points, what we also have are better ideas of the compulsions that drive people to do things they might otherwise not do. Putting Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson aside for a second, I read up this morning on one of the other figures Rob Manfred “pardoned” yesterday: Shufflin’ Phil Douglas, a talented pitcher whose career, and life, were ruined by a seemingly incurable case of alcoholism. Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis banned Douglas for life for threatening his manager, John McGraw, in a letter written and sent to an opposing team’s player while in a drunken stupor that Douglas later tried to retract (Among McGraw’s actions contributing to Douglas’ animosity was hiring detectives to kidnap Douglas and haul him off to a draconian rehab). I’m not suggesting that Douglas was ever a Hall of Fame candidate – his drunkenness destroyed his career – but Landis’ action, and Landis’ refusal to reopen Douglas’ case in the face of new evidence, was as much political as it was judicial. Just as Landis took a rigid stand in banning Jackson, whose performance in the 1919 World Series suggested the exact opposite of any attempt to throw games, for the same reason. Landis needed to show he ruled with an iron fist, facts and mercy be damned

A case could be made, convincingly, that Rose’s gambling addiction was an illness and should be viewed as such. Not as an excuse but an explanation.

John Coppinger: The Shoeless Joe thing is interesting because he had a lot of people take advantage of his inability to read to get him on board with the gambling. So that’s an interesting case. All cases are different and should be heard separately and with their own context. Rose deserves that same consideration. But to me, it’s cut and dry. Was it an addiction/illness? You can say that. But he was told what he needed to do to get back in baseball’s good graces, and then completely ignored it.

A lot of people say “well with MLB’s relationships with gambling sites, that should mean that Rose should get in because it’s hypocritical.” I feel that the relationships with the gambling sites, which are absolutely seedy and icky, are the very reason why Rose shouldn’t get in. You can’t send that message that you can still receive baseball’s highest honor, albeit posthumously, if you cause any shred of doubt as to whether the game is on the up and up. Because once that doubt is created, baseball is done. Finished. It’s the absolute worst message to send.

A.J. Carter: Giving the honor to Rose posthumously is almost the worst punishment for him because he won’t be able to use it as a marketing opportunity. Look. I never would have nominated Rose for best human being, and as I said, his enshrinement should come with a bucket of asterisks, but to get back to the point that started this discussion, as I get older, I see fewer and fewer absolutes and I see more shades of gray to explain people’s actions. Release the Menendez brothers. Only don’t do it on Father’s Day.

John Coppinger: I’ll just end with this: Howie Rose last night recounted a story that Ralph Kiner told him, that if Rose ever got enshrined, a lot of Hall of Famers would never return for the ceremonies. Granted, that was a while ago and the pool of living Hall of Famers is different. But the ones that will be around near the end of Rose’s vote in December of 2027 will end up holding the most weight over what the Golden Era Committee does since they will comprise its members. I’m fascinated to see what they will do.